CONCORD — As part of a settlement agreement approved this week, the city will pay $1.2 million to the family of a 21-year-old Antioch man shot and killed by two officers in 2013.

The agreement, approved by the Concord City Council during a closed session on Tuesday, comes weeks before a lawsuit by the family of Charles Burns was scheduled to go to trial. The suit alleged officers killed Burns “intentionally and maliciously” while he was attempting to surrender, by shooting him and mauling him with a police dog.

An attorney for the officers, Noah Blechman, said the settlement will be paid for through the city of Concord’s insurance plan, and that “it was in the best interest of the city and the officers to resolve the litigation at this point, to avoid the further cost of litigation.”

“The city and our office believed strongly in our defenses in the case, and believed in the lawfulness and appropriateness of the actions of the involved officers,” Blechman said.

During the May 2013 incident, Concord officers shot at Burns 11 times. He suffered 10 gunshot wounds, including wounds to his back and front, his right arm, and one that entered through the top of his skull. The officers testified they fired after seeing Burns reach at his waistband and turn toward them, which the plaintiffs strongly refuted.

Burns’ family sued in 2014. In November, a judge threw out legal claims against the city of Concord, its police chief, and other defendants, but allowed the suit to proceed against six Concord officers, including Detectives Chris Loercher and Francisco Ramirez, the officers who shot Burns, and former K9 Officer Matthew Switzer, who released his dog onto Burns during the incident.

Though the settlement has been finalized, Burns’ family has not given up its quest to convince prosecutors to charge the two officers involved in the shooting. In 2013, the incident was reviewed by the former District Attorney, who resigned after committing perjury last year, and officers were cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

“We’re not done,” said Peter Johnson, an attorney for the family. “I think the officers should be prosecuted.”

Johnson said he agreed to settle the suit to avoid putting Burns’ family through an “extremely traumatic” trial, which would have hyper-focused on a detailed, blow-by-blow account of Burns’ last moments.

“It seemed like the right thing to do for the family,” Johnson said. “Going through this trial was going to make them relive a trauma in a much more graphic manner than what they’ve had to at this point.”

The day of the shooting, a police task force showed up to a home on the 2700 block of Barcelona Circle of Antioch to arrest Burns. When police drove up, a truck where Burns was a passenger drove off. After it collided with a police car, Burns exited and began to run, slowly. The shooting took place seconds later.

Both sides disagree on nearly every detail, from the sequence of events during the shooting to the officers’ conduct leading up to it, to which side was responsible for the car crash. Johnson alleged the officers had planted drugs on Burns, used misinformation to acquire an arrest warrant for him, and hadn’t followed proper procedure during the arrest, using unmarked cars.

The plaintiffs also came up with two possible scenarios: that Burns was shot, fell to the ground, bit by a K9, then shot again as he lay there, or that the dog attacked him after he’d already been killed. The K9 officer, Switzer, testified he heard several shots, parked his car, exited, confirmed a dog was needed, then saw Burns’ head leave the ground so he unleashed his dog. Switzer was fired from his job as a policeman the following year, after it was revealed he’d used his position to steal prescription drugs from the elderly.

The city of Concord, meanwhile, maintained that Burns had reached for his waistband and turned to Loercher, who interpreted the movement as Burns reaching for a weapon.

“Several experts in the case, including the medical examiner, confirmed that any movement of Mr. Burns after he goes to the ground could likely be explained as involuntary movement,” Blechman said.

Blechman also said there were 12 witnesses, officers and a deputy district attorney, who backed up the police account. He said Burns was legitimately identified as a drug trafficking suspect and that he had arrest warrants at the time as well. He said two plaintiff eyewitnesses who contradicted the official account either gave inconsistent statements or did not have a good vantage point of the shooting.

Nate Gartrell covers crime, politics, and corruption in Contra Costa County. He joined the Bay Area News Group in 2014. Outside of journalism, he doesn't do much. He aspires to visit all 30 Major League Baseball stadiums. Reach him at 925-779-7174.

More in Crime & Courts

The White House's move to restore Acosta's pass, announced in a letter to the news network, appeared to be a capitulation to CNN in its brief legal fight against the administration. White House officials had suspended Acosta's White House press pass following a contentious news conference on Nov. 7, prompting CNN to sue last week to force the administration to...

Not only was racial animus a likely factor when Charter Communications repeatedly rejected negotiations with Entertainment Studios, the TV programmer, but Charter's attempt to shield itself from allegations of bias using the First Amendment is also without merit, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.